Scripture PRIOR to the Flood

Charles...I'll stand on what I said,preferring to believe in literal history as given to Moses by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.I don't believe that to be "predetermined 20th century western theology".I believe it to be providentially preserved BIBLE theology.BUT...you are free to believe what you wish as I'm free to respectfully disagree with you.We'll both know the truth when we get to the Judgement Seat of Christ.I personally believe in the "young earth" interpretation.I'll not give any ground to anything that suggests that any form of "evolution" is truth.The God I believe in SPOKE and things happened and were created.He is God...and only He can do that!

Greg Sr.

 

Greg,

Fair enough. As I've said many times I have no animosity toward the young earth position. What I don't like is the (sometimes) insinuations by young earthers that those who believe in an old earth are doing do out of a lack of respect for the Bible or out of a lack of trust in God. We believe as we do in an attempt to be true to the original authorial intent of the scriptures.

 

Charles,

By reading some of your other posts in other forums and definitly this one. I have to say I see a common thread and that is this. You have a hard time submitting to the fact that Holy Scripture is the final authority in matters.
It seems to me. (Only my opinion) that you have a greater passion to defend your scientific position than you do to defend the very Bible that has within its pages the very Words of God that bring redemption for mankind.
Why would a person who has been Biblically saved defend a position that would lend itself to casting doubt on the Bible? Science must submit to the Bible not the Bible to Science. You got it backwards.
By the flow of your posts you defend your position in such a way as give me the idea that you know your position is wrong but don't want to give it up. Don't let pride hold you back.
By the way,I bet you don't believe in a literal 7 days either?

 

One thing is certain. The Holy Spirit will never lead a true believer to a false conclusion.

 

You nailed it OldReg.

 

I keep going back and reading some of Charles' post on this subject. I'm not trying to be offensive here but, when I read them I keep saying: That sounds like a liberal to me. Maybe I'm a mean spirited, judgemental guy. Well they been calling us Ind. Bapt. that for years it just ain't so. I just calls um likes I sees um. If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck?

 

Shannon,

No I'm not a liberal. In theological terms I would be called "moderately conservative".

I believe in a virgin birth, a death on the cross for sins, a bodily resurrection, and a furure return.

Do I believe in a literal seven days? Let me put it this way - I don't think the passage was intended to be literal. Genesis 1-11 was intended to glorify YHWH and show His superiority over all the local "gods". Thus to believe that the earth is old does not mean that one distrusts scripture, since scripture was not INTENDING to show a literal six day creation in the recent past.

As far as trust in the scripture as the final say? Well yes I do. But I think that we sometimes must study to determine what the scriptures are saying. In terms of fundamentalist interpretations - I think we hold to many true doctrines. But we also hold to some things which are in truth not set forth as such in scripture - we hold to them because we want to. A six day creation is likely one of these. Creation was described as it was because the narrative was intended for the ancient near easterners, whose culture and tradition dealt in myth and epic.

I have no problem with a young earth creationist view. What I do have a problem with is those who:

1. Insist that one must be a Genesis literalist to be saved.

2. Who believe it's OK to lie about what science suggests as long as one ends up concluding that Genesis 1-11 is literal.

I agree that scripture is our final authority - but I don't agree that humans get to arbitrarily decide what scripture means and then force that meaning on others. My intent is to be faithful to the true intent of scripture, even ifthat steps on some people's toes.

 

Fair enough, Mr. Meadows.Good response. I shall retract my liberal comments. Forgive me. I just wanted to see where you stood.

 

The 7 days are literal dude. A day was 24 hours in the mythological,epical ancient near eastern culture and its 24hrs today.
God's chief purpose of Scripture is to reveal His redemptive plan for mankind. The Bible was written so if a man was a uneducated farmer could understand it or if he was a scientist. What I'm saying is the Bible doesn't have some deeper,hidden meaning behind (days) so as to confuse us. That would be more of a hinderance to the common man seeking after God than a help.

 

Shannon,

God's chief purpose of Scripture is to reveal His redemptive plan for mankind.

I couldn't agree more.

And you're right the days are literal days. The 1 million years per day thing is not correct. Thus either God meant that He created everything in six days or He is using a SIMPLE story to describe what happened.

I choose the latter. I would be overjoyed to find out tomorrow that all or the old earth stuff is wrong - but I think that's my human desire to have things simple.

The point of Genesis is theological, not biological. Thus to have an old earth does not render Genesis wrong since it was never intended to be a biology book.

 

The question that should be asked and answered Charles is: Do you believe in creation or evolution?

 

Oldreg,

The question that should be asked and answered Charles is: Do you believe in creation or evolution?

No that is precisely NOT the question that should be asked.

You automatically assume (and somewhat arrogantly I think) that God could not have used evolution to create. This should not automatically be seen as an either/or.

My answer is this:

I am an old earth advocate. I am such because (1) the Bible does not intend to say one way or another how old the earth is and (2) what we can see around us, using our God-given faculties, suggests that the earth is old.

I believe that God created by divine fiat. Since then some evolution of species has likely occurred.

 

Unfortunately many professing Christians have compromised the Biblical teaching of creation with the claims of evolution and embraced a concept called theistic evolution teaching that God uses evolution to accomplish His creative purposes. The term theistic evolution is self contradictory since the fundamental postulates of evolution are unlimited time and chance without design. The following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. ....Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.

 

So now you're quoting evolutionists to support your views? Do you trust their insight?

 

Since I believe that God will bring all that He has chosen in Jesus Christ unto Salvation I do not believe evolution will effect the Salvation of His elect.

However, when it comes to the impact of evolution on the Christian world view I certainly trust their insight. All you need do is look around you at the decay of moral and cultural values in this country since the teaching of evolution replaced prayer in public schools.

 

Charles, how do you know what my views are? I don't believe I have not posted them on this thread. I believe the only things that I have said is that some scientists believe a vapor canopy once covered the earth before the Flood. I also said that the Holy Spirit would not lead anyone into error. Then I thanked God that we had two learned prophets to educate us poor ignorant folks. Beyond that I don't recall stating my views but then perhaps you can read minds in abstentia.

 

Charles I quoted the two evolutionists in response to your remark above:

I would be interested in knowing what was arrogant about my question. It was a very simple straightforward question, actually a question not directed to you personally but the Forum in general in light of your previous post. Are you reading minds in abstentia again?

 

OldReg,

Your sharp as a tack. I just forgot about linkig old earth adovcates with theistic evolutionists.

By the way I had a wonderful,born again scientist who taught us a class at Southeastern about the potholes in the old earth theory.He was a scientist who studied posions for a living. He got saved and felt called of God to offer his expertise to Bible students.

How do old earth advocates explain the Grand Canyon? I've heard both sides before. I'm just not qualified to debate it. But doesn't the Grand Canyon give old earth folk a problem?

 

I would assert taht the Grand Canyon is a problem for young earthers, actually. Trying to explain all of the features of the Grand Canyon ina young earth paradigm would be exceedingly difficult. Just the angular uncomformities all by themselves negate the possibility that most YEers assert where all of the layers were laid sown in the flood. There would be no way for the layers to have been deposited, eroded, then additional layers deposited on top, hardened and then a canyon cut through the whole stack. Even the lowest sedimentary layers below the unconformities contain fossils eliminating the possible work around of some that these layers were original.

The meanders in the canyon and the steep sides of the canyon negate the possibility that the canyon formed rapidly by runoff through soft deposits. Soft deposits would yield straighter runs rather than the meanders and would not be strong enough to result in the high, vertical faces.

Some of the layers have rock of volcanic origin scattered in there. Hard to do this while sedimentary layers are being rapidly laid down.

When solids are suspended in water (or any fluid) the largest settle out first and the smallest take the longest to settle out. If all of these layers were laid down at once, the layers should be sorted with the coarsest material at the bottom and the finest at the top. This is not so.

The layers are sorted according to their ratios of radioactive materials. Hard for water to do this.

The layers preserve many kinds of fossils including trace fossils. It is quite hard to get trace footprints and raindrops and such when under thousands of feet of raging flood.

DIfferent layers also show records of being formed under specifc types of ecology. For instance, some layers were formed while the area was in a shallow marine environment, like a coastline. Other show very different ecological niches. If all these layers were laid down in a raging flood, there would not be the ability to leave such finely tuned markers.

 

Thank you. Like I said I don't know much about the argument.